PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 1 April 2009 Issue (Page E-2)
Earth Hour is a testament to the ability of people from all corners of the globe to unite for the greater good. Since garnering massive international coverage after its successful implementation in Sydney, Australia two years ago, cities and municipalities all over the world have started adopting this ritual to signify their support for the fight against global warming. Even in the midst of a crisis, it proves that mankind is capable of setting aside differences and transcending boundaries for a common good. It also proves that ordinary citizens are not apathetic, and are willing to be the catalysts for change.
It is perhaps the only hour of darkness that is to be seen as a message of hope.
But as soon as we turn the lights on, so too do we snap back to reality. The bigger questions that surround Earth Hour again begin to rear their frightful heads. Among them, there are two that are particularly important, and need immediate answers. These two questions are:
How many Earth Hours will it take before our leaders decide to do something?
And are we, as citizens of the world, ready to take the necessary steps beyond Earth Hour to fight against global warming?
To be utterly realistic, Earth Hour’s greatest strength is also it’s greatest weakness: it is a symbolic gesture. On the one hand, it is a moving spectacle; imagine an Earth Hour where all cities in the world participate. Imagine the whole world collectively turning their lights off. It is a striking image made more powerful by the fact that we have the power to do it. Not only does it make us aware of the problem, but also of our ability to solve it, and it is being made aware of this power that serves to make it an effective rallying point.
But as a tool for pressuring leaders to act and big businesses to change? I don’t think so; small gestures correspond to small results. I am not sure that an hour-long tantrum, even a global one at that, is enough to convince those in power to push for the changes that will truly have an impact on the environment, especially if these leaders have other interests in mind. Even if they did, corporations nowadays can become so powerful that they can dictate the way our governments behave. And corporations—think big industries and oil companies, particularly—will always seek to protect their profits.
Thus, the first question. Unfortunately, we don’t have the luxury of time. The world will continue to get exorbitantly warmer, with or without us. Throughout the course of history, mankind (or the people who represent us, at least) has demonstrated time and again that it is unable to acknowledge the existence of problems until they become too big to solve.
Also, mankind often has a penchant for stopping at gestures. If anything, Earth Hour can be appropriated as a tool for leaders to say that they are aware of the problem and are doing something about it, whether the latter is true or not.
But the question inevitably boomerangs back to those who raise it.
What makes Earth Hour appealing is that it does not demand so much. An hour is not so much to ask from anyone. If we can turn our lights off for the duration of the time we sleep, we can certainly turn our lights off for an hour.
But other, bigger acts get increasingly difficult. It becomes an entirely different question altogether. Would you give up using your car? Would you be willing to stop using your aircon (in this kind of weather)?
This is my point exactly: human beings are creatures of convenience, and unfortunately, making real strides in the fight against global warming is too much of a hassle.
In the face of that realization, it is so easy to say that a little inconvenience can be endured for the sake of saving the world. But if this is true, then movements that advocate an amalgam of little gestures to help save the environment should have gone mainstream by now. In the end, the world won’t be saved by our talking.
So, too, won’t Earth Hour—unless we are willing to move beyond it.
Otherwise, we are just kidding ourselves. Happy April Fools Day.
The Earth Hour in perspective by James Soriano, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Philippines License.
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:53 am
Great perspective on Earth Hour. I think the fact of the matter is that we all see Earth Hour just as you said: a symbolic gesture. And like all symbolic gestures, while it has powerful imagery and significance, ultimately, it is just that: a gesture. While Earth Hour gives a wonderful message of hope (for the world) and unity (of people, globally), it’s not something that will really trigger people to do more, and you phrased that very well, I think. I agree that it would be hard for mankind, whether or not the world seems to be in any immediate danger (which it is!), to bring it upon ourselves to take the next step in fighting global warming.
In fact, even if we do take the next step, who can say that the world can make the fight against global warming not just something we do once a year, for a mere hour? I mean, our country had the EDSA Revolution (two, in fact), and despite the unity the country had back then, we always, always go back to square one. Nothing really changes. It might be relatively easy to take the initiative, but it’s hard to make it into a habit and follow through with what we’re fighting for. And this is just one country; paano pa kaya kung buong mundo?
Just as you said: “It is perhaps the only hour of darkness that is to be seen as a message of hope.” That’s true, but I sincerely hope that the message isn’t falling on deaf ears.
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:57 am
Thanks Toni! At least there is hope, if nothing else.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
except of course that global warming, Al Gore style, at least, is not that favored by scientists anymore. haha! oh, and cows still contribute most to “greenhouse gasses”. I get your point though, and it’s a point well made! Of course, for these leaders, there will always be a staggeryingly long list of priorities and issues to adress and I think the seemingly dormant situation of the environment will inevitably take a back seat.
Sanay na tayo dito, “procrastinate” until the last moment kasi punong-puno na schedule natin! It’s a very depressing though, the idea that the environment will really only be seriously adressed when it hits critical (and, these politicians hope, after their time), but I guess through their eyes, the environment is less of a concern when No.Kor is threatening to blow us all up anyway.
Yet another excellent entry! cheers!
April 9th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Oh yeah? Update me! Haven’t seen any new literature about global warming since 4A.
LOL @ North Korea, their missile test was a failure, and the whole world recognized it. (Which was why they had to declare it a success.)
Hahaha, stupid politicians! That’s true though, people are self-interested enough to not worry about it because it won’t be a big problem until after they die. Almost makes me wish that global warming would accelerate more quickly. *knocks on wood*
Thank you though! Cheers!